What China plans to do outside the country will play a huge part in determining what happens inside the country. China embarked on a bold agenda roughly four years ago that they say will play a major role in shaping the world. China has decided to reach out and invest in many countries. The "One Belt, One Road initiative" also known as OROB is an all-encompassing and confusing "work in progress" that will reshape world trade and the relationships China has with many countries. The OROB strategy holds both huge potential benefits and risk for China. These are explored in the article below.

Yao Yang says China is determined to achieve its goals to modernise the country and have a society "with the kinds of benefits – opportunities, personal comforts, and public services – found in today’s advanced democracies," but without universal suffrage. The leadership in Beijing has seen the downsides of "electoral democracy" that has propelled right-wing populists in Europe and America to power. This development has "reinforced their resolve" to suppress voting rights. The problem is that people aspire for more, once they have reached certain goals. The author raises rightly the question whether citizens will still subject themselves to the current "China Model" that fulfills "some requirements of political legitimacy," once when all their material needs have been met. It comes as no surprise that "Chinese people will almost certainly demand more personal freedom and political accountability." Will the leaders be able to face the challenge and " find a governance model that fulfills these demands while continuing to exclude electoral democracy?"In 2049 China will mark the centenary of the People's Republic of China. President Xi Jinping has ambitious goals. Not only does China strive to soon overtake the US as the world's largest economy, it also wants to increase its GDP per capita, so that it can join the "high-income club, embodied by the OECD." The government aimed to move up to 300 million people from rural areas to cities to boost growth, while their villages would make way for new cities. Many Chinese feel abandoned or intimidated by these changes, fearing they benefit only the rich and ruthless.The author says China has made huge efforts to clean up the environment - lakes, rivers and soil etc. - "something that ordinary Chinese now view not as a luxury, but as an imperative." The government has sought to strike a balance between protecting the environment, while not choking economic growth. Factories responsible for polluting the environment were shut down and natural gas replaces coal for household heating. Despite better air quality, there is still much to be done. The one-child policy had created a demographic deficit. "While automation may protect China from severe labor shortages, population aging will increase the economic burden of social security" and widen the pension gap. When China set up the current pension system in early 1990s, the government made payments to the retirees using contributions of the working population, without there being any cash pile from the previous generation. The author says, with a dwindling working population, "the system’s deficits will mount. In fact, some rapidly aging and slow-growing provinces already depend on central government subsidies. China desperately needs a more unified and comprehensive system to balance social security coverage across the country."Xi Jinping has vowed to strengthen the rule of law, not just to advance his anti-corruption campaign. Government authorities take on the task to sensitise citizens to civics - "a society governed by reliable rules and legal structures." Yet what they promote is different from the "law-based governance" in Western democracy, because Xi wants to "build a country of socialist rule of law," in which an individual's nature, freedom and development are inseparably linked to the society. It remains to be seen whether this political system can be an alternative to democracy, which is "indispensable for a dynamic civil society" as is currently the case in the West.

" the rule of law must be strengthened considerably, and not just to rein in official corruption. There needs to be a cultural shift, with citizens learning how to function in a society governed by reliable rules and legal structures, not geographical or familial ties."

Does the author know nothing about China? Between 2012-2016, violent crime fell forty-three percent (road fatalities dropped fifty-six percent) and satisfaction with public security rose from eighty-seven percent to ninety-two percent making China one of the most trusting, law-biding societies on earth. When Harvard’s Tony Saich asked the public to prioritize their concerns, they ranked ‘Maintenance of Social Order’ highest and, when he asked which government service they were most satisfied with they again placed ‘Maintenance of Social Order’ first. Today, after the most lawless century in Chinese history, death penalties are declining and the Social Credit campaign promises to create a smooth transition to a just, xiaokang society.

And this takes the cake: "It is widely believed that democracy is indispensable for a dynamic civil society. Yet the Chinese authorities are determined not to introduce electoral democracy in any way, shape, or form. "

China, regardless of how you examine it–constitutionally, electively, popularly, procedurally, operationally, substantively or financially–China comes out ahead of the USA as a democracy. In survey after survey, it's the most trusted government in the world and its policies enjoy the highest support. Read 'Selling Democracy to the Chinese': https://www.unz.com/article/selling-democracy-to-china/.

“One key obstacle lies in the Chinese political system. It is widely believed that democracy is indispensable for a dynamic civil society. Yet the Chinese authorities are determined not to introduce electoral democracy in any way, shape, or form. ”No question on democracy is indispensable for a dynamic civil society. However, no reason to equate electoral democracy with democracy.

First of all, election does not necessarily conferred the government the consent of the consent of the governed. Rasmussen Poll has conducted several polls since 2010 asking likely voters on whether the US government has the consent of the governed.

Results: Few agreed, around 20%.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2017/few_think_government_has_consent_of_the_governed

In addition, electoral democracy would eventually fail. It is the worst kind of democracy.

Electoral democracy should be seen as an aspect of a comprehensive understanding of democracy. I agree it would be a mistake to limit democracy only to electoral democracy.

There are two problems with focussing narrowly on electoral democracy:

(Reasoned discussion vs Identity-based voting) First, there is an unfortunate tendency to focus on winning the vote; whereas real democracy would entail paying attention to minority rights and alternative view points, so that social choices not only reflect people's preferences, but people are also open to changing their preferences and choices to take account of other people's wellbeing and freedoms. Ongoing public reasoning is at the heart of democracy, not just at elections, but also between elections. Electoral democracy is especially dangerous if the electorate tends to vote along ethnic, social class or other social identities. This tendency to vote based on social identity (which seems to be increasing among some Western countries) can (and will likely) be exploited by politicians.

(Institutions vs Comprehensive Outcomes) Second, electoral democracy alone cannot ensure just and legitimate outcomes. Formally, black Americans and indigenous Americans have an equal right to vote as white Americans, but the outcomes they experience are vastly different. A narrow focus on electoral democracy may lull politicians and policy-makers into thinking that their legitimacy is secured, and there is no need to ensure that just outcomes are achieved. Whereas in China, the government knows its legitimacy ultimately rests of achieving just outcomes. Unlike Western governments, the Chinese government cannot claim legitimacy from being elected. In truth, elections only provide a poor form of legitimacy if they do not deliver just outcomes.

A focus on outcomes does not mean that institutions do not matter. Institutions - including the rule of law, basic liberties, and some form of electoral democracy - are part of a society's comprehensive outcomes. We have reason to value, not just a reasonable standard of living, but also basic liberties.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.